McCourry. EKO3 2015
1
Domain Analytic, and Domain Analytic-Like, Studies of Catalog Needs: Addressing the
Ethical Dilemma of Catalog Codes Developed With Inadequate Knowledge of User Needs
Maurine McCourry, Ph.D., Instructor, Dominican University, Technical Services Librarian,
Hillsdale College. [email protected]
Abstract:
The Code of Ethics of the American Library Association states that librarians “provide the
highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources”
(American Library Association, 2008). To facilitate the provision of “usefully organized
resources,” library catalogers have developed standards that allow for uniform, codified
knowledge organization (KO). At least as early as Cutter (1876), and long before Dervin and
Nilan (1986), cataloging codes have stated clear goals of meeting user needs. Following in this
tradition, the most recent widely-adopted code, Resource Description and Access (RDA), lists as
its primary objective a “responsiveness to user needs” (American Library Association, 2010,
section 0.4.2), based in part on the “user tasks” identified in the Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records published by the International Federation of Library Associations, which
encompass a “broad range of user expectations and needs” (IFLA Study Group on the Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 1998, p. 1). Despite this stated focus on user needs,
however, evidence of empirical assessment of the exact nature of those needs is sparse. In order
to meet stated ethical objectives, the producers of cataloging codes must have a broad and
continually updated knowledge of the needs of the users served by those codes.
Papers presented at the 2009 Conference on the Ethics of Information Organization by Richard
Smiraglia and Gretchen Hoffman both suggested domain analysis as a promising approach to
improving the assessment of the needs of library catalog users, leading to a more ethical
provision of library catalog data. Because RDA is intended to produce data able “to function
within a wide range of technological environments” (American Library Association, 2010),
presumably serving users of all types, cataloging according to its instructions should meet the
needs of every domain of users that might use that information. Establishing such a widelyapplied standard based on a single cognitive model of information needs, by all accounts
principally based on century and a half traditions of library cataloging, limits its scope. A socio-
McCourry. EKO3 2015
2
cognitive assessment of user needs might facilitate the future development of this soon-to-be
universal standard in significantly diversifying its service to all types of users.
A study performed during the 2013-2014 academic year was an attempt to develop a model for
this sort of assessment, using domain analysis not as a methodological framework, as explained
by Smiraglia (2014), but rather as a theoretical framework, providing the rationale for studying
the catalog needs of a particular group, or domain, of users. The study focused on the catalog
needs of a small group of liberal arts music students. Open-ended questionnaires with 36
students, semi-structured interviews with 7 students, and a focus group with 5 students, were
conducted in order to gather textual data representing the elements of bibliographic information
needed by this domain of users in a library catalog supporting their studies in music.
The collected textual data yielded a rather extensive list of elements of information identified as
needed in a library catalog by this group of students. This list was mapped to attributes and
relationships addressed by RDA instructions, and the needs were shown to be only partially
fulfilled by cataloging to RDA standards. The study was designed to develop a model for future
studies, and cannot be considered statistically significant or fully representative of the needs of
any group. Data from future studies of this type, though, aggregated with data from this study,
might help to define areas in which RDA should be adjusted to meet needs of diverse domains.
This paper will summarize the 2013-2014 study and outline plans for studies building on the
model. The possibility of a more robust alignment with previous work in domain analysis in KO
will be explored, and new approaches embracing a broader definition of domains will be
suggested. The primary focus will be on the potential for this sort of study to address the ethical
dilemma of catalog codes designed to serve users without clear understanding of the needs of
those users. Questions to be addressed will include:
1. Can studies of small domains of users help to solve the ethical dilemma of cataloging
codes created with limited empirical knowledge of user needs?
2. To what extent should such studies be methodologically aligned with previous domain
analytic investigations in KO?
3. What evidence exists to suggest that RDA should serve users of all types, and what is the
role of ethics in any such suggestion?
McCourry. EKO3 2015
3
References:
American Library Association (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association.
Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.
American Library Association. (2010). RDA toolkit. Chicago, Ill: American Library Association.
Cutter, C. A. (1876). Rules for a printed dictionary catalog. Washington: U.S.G.P.O.
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information
Science & Technology, 21, 3–33.
Hoffman, G. L. (2009). Meeting users’ needs in cataloging: What is the right thing to do?
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(7), 631–641.
Smiraglia, R. P. (2009). Bibliocentrism, cultural warrant, and the ethics of resource description:
A case study. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(7), 671–686.
Smiraglia, R. P. (2014). The elements of knowledge organization. Cham: Springer International
Publishing.